Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 14

= April 14 =

Kufuor family
This website is about John Kufuor's family. They said John Kufuor have 9 siblings, 4 males 5 females, Nana Agnes Addo Kufuor is the oldest sister. So who is the oldest siblings in John Kufuor's family, or John A. Kufuor is the oldest child. Is Kwame Kufuor the second child in Kufuor's family? Then who is the youngest? and what age is the youngest. One of his kids go to school in Louisiana, does he have any family living in California?--69.226.37.237 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * a more direct link to the page in question —Tamfang (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't these two links the same. I'm looking for a link is more specific about Kufuor's family ancestory. Who is the oldest child in Kufuor's family, and over his kids what's the earliest birth range. Is his oldest child born in 1965, youngest in 1973? This site don't say much. Does Kufuor have any family ancestorys in California?--69.226.37.237 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The two links will show you the same page, but one of them unnecessarily goes to Google first. It's not important but I like to simplify such things whenever I can. —Tamfang (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Partial answer: Brittanica says "John Kofi Agyekum Kufuor was the 7th of 10 children and the son of Nana Kwadwo Agyekum, an Asante royal, and Nana Ama Dapaah, a queen mother". The BBC confirms (or simply repeats) this statement. I haven't found the names of his elder siblings in another source. Hopefully another editor can answer better, including the part about Kufuor's children. If you have library access, you might look for one of the few published biographies of Kufuor. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe 2 of his sibling is dead. The others have no ages is listed. maybe this is normal women habit to keep personal on agings.--69.228.147.37 (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does 7th of 10 kids means 6 siblings is older than J.A. Kufuor? The links I posted above named only 7 out of 9 siblings.
 * '''Nana Agnes Addo Kufuor - Eldest Sister, spouse of the late Asantehene,
 * Sir Nana Osei Agyeman-Prempeh -Professor Emeritus Francis Addo-Kufuor -2nd born; Chairman of the University Council of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
 * Hon Dr Kwame Addo Kufuor -Defence Minister 
 * Mrs Rebecca Dodoo - wife of the late Registrar of the University of Ghana. Lives in the United Kingdom 
 * Mrs Cecilia Campbell -lawyer in the United Kingdom
 * George Addo Kufuor -Businessman
 * Mrs Josephine Kankam -Kumasi


 * Yes, 7th of 10 would normally mean six were older and three younger. I've since found this book, as well. Not all of it is available, but the part I could read was about Kufuor's mother, and lists nine (not ten) of her children, (though it doesn't specify their birth order) as Francis Addo, Agnes Addo, John Agyekum, Kwame Addo, George Addo, Mariam Addo, Cecelia Akoto, Rebecca Doudu and Josephine Annin. It also mentions an alternate name for John - Kofi Diawno/Diawuo which you might also try googling.
 * Also found this newspaper article from 2002 (scroll down to "President Kufour: still gentle, still open"). In it he says he had four brothers (Professor Emeritus Francis Addo-Kufour, George Addo Kufour, other two not named) and five sisters (Nana Agnes Addo Kufour, Mrs Rebecca Dodoo, Mrs Cecilia Campbell, Mrs Josephine Kankam, other one not named) and that one sister was by that time dead. (NB that this confirms the ten siblings number, meaning the book left out one brother.).
 * The newspaper article also says his eldest child is his son J. Addo Kufour who was born about 1964. The younger four children are named also. You may have to continue googling each person's name individually to try and find more. Best luck, WikiJedits (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we have all informations about John's siblings. John Kufuor's siblings also have their own kids (The only well known is John K. Agyekeum and Kwame). Total John Kufuor have 10 grandkids. Going on google and just dig for such a gold/diamond like this is tough. Where they live? Everybody is all over the earth. He have family in England, one in Louisiana, I'm wondering if any of his families is in California? Los Angeles? Orange County?--69.231.5.91 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

magazine archives
I'm currently trying to find a copy of an article Willie Morris wrote for Reader's Digest. The article was about his black Labrador Pete. I tried searching the Reader's Digest website. But I found nothing. If anyone out there can help me, I'd appreciate it very much. Thank you.69.203.157.50 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're looking for Willie Morris, "Pete, the mayor of Bridgehampton," Reader's Digest December 1978, according to William Thomas, "Willie Morris, Home Again" reprinted in Conversations with Willie Morris. Morris's "Preface" to The Courting of Marcus Dupree, 1992 begins "It has been ten years since my beloved Black Labrador Pete,long since departed to the Lord's infinite Heaven for the finest and bravest ..." But you knew that... --Wetman (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I work for a magazine, and if anyone contacted us with such a specific reference - issue, year, and name of article - we could easily find it in the archive and would be pleased to mail out a photocopy. I don't know if Reader's Digest does this (perhaps their reader letter volume is greater than ours) but it could be worth a try now Wetman has provided the details. WikiJedits (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference librarian at even a medium sized public or college library could tell you if they have it in their collection, or what nearby larger libraries have it. I have seen decades of Reader's Digests on the bookshelves of a small college library. You might also be able to buy it on Ebay, since right now three copies of the December 1978 issue are offered for sale right now:_Unfortunately I cannot link directly to the page with the three listings because of our annoying "spam filter," but just go to www.ebay.com and enter Reader's Digest  December 1978 in the "Find" window.. Edison (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd expect that any good-sized US library would stock old Reader's Digests (although some of the older ones might be well digested by now). Once you find the article, you could make copies. StuRat (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look in History magazines, their reliable to help you with this. Make copies, but do not copyright((User talk: guest))7th December, 2009

under the gold standard, is it much easier to launder money?
under the gold standard, is it much easier to launder money, like a simple soap-and-water affair?

or is it that even if you were to go so far as melting it isotopes or something else would still give you away? (obviously for both questions above, i mean you or whoever you were getting money from would turn in the notes for the gold, either for you to sell on to someone else to turn into notes again, or you can do it yourself, if i understand how the gold standard works...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.35.239 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Anti-money laundering relies not so much on tracing the physical notes and coins, but the flow of the value of the money in an accounting sense. Buying metal and then selling the metal to convert from "dirty" to "clean" cash is generally just as (in)effective whether under the gold standard or not. Generally speaking, you can as easily go out and buy a tonne of gold as you could back in the days of the gold standard. The only possible advantage under the gold standard is that you are more likely to end up with the same amount of (say) US Dollars you started with under the gold standard (since one is pegged to the other), while today you would face the risk of the price of gold changing. In a market where gold prices are going up, though, this is probably a good thing. And if you are willing to spend a little, you can insure against the risk of the price movement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Money laundering is hiding the origin of money so as it is not possible for authorities to show that the millions you have in the bank is not the result of a bank robbery but rather the result of a prolonged series of wins in Vegas. Essentially the individuals look to take the money they have received by dubious means and then get to a point where they can say "this is money taken from x" - so for instance a common technique is for a large amount of money to be placed into an Investment, then the investment is surrendered at which point you get your money back - less any surrender charges. This gives your money a 'history' which can explain where the money you have comes from (of course it can take more than one 'cycle' to get the money 'clean' but you get the idea). What you mention is a technique to launder money too but it isn't reliant on the gold standard. Most money laundering will result in a reduction in return - it's the 'price' the person pays to try clean the money and short-term notable-losses are something that financial institutions look out for when trying to uncovered money laundering. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Puritan Pilgrims
The Puritans were not allowed to worship freely in England, so they left to form colonies in the New World. But since the 13 colonies were under the same British rule as the England they had left, why were they allowed to worship freely in the colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23SarahBeth (talk • contribs) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A fundamental difference between the policies of Britain vs. France and Spain in the 17th century etc. is that the French and Spanish governments imposed strict religious orthodoxy on their colonies, while the British authorities were generally glad to see dissidents and malcontents sailing off to English colonies (an easy way to get rid of them from the mother country, while building up strategic English settlements abroad)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP may want to read our article on Plymouth Colony and Massachusetts Bay Colony and Pilgrims and Puritans for some background on religious tolerance and Puritans in British North America. As a bit of a background, King James I called the Hampton Court Conference to deal with the "Puritan question".  After this conference, things became "unpleasant" for Puritans in England as they were regularly rounded up and jailed for their religious beliefs.  Some of the Puritans moved to the Netherlands (henceforth known as Pilgrims), since Religious tolerance was much greater there, and the Dutch had a Calvinist belief system that more closely matched their own.  The Netherlands was not an ideal solution, however.  In the first, the Pilgrims that moved there were not Dutch, and so never quite "fit in" to Dutch society.  Secondly, they weren't exactly free from persecution of the English.  Since the Pilgrim leaders in the Netherlands kept agitating for religious change in England, the English authorities would show up in the Netherlands to arrest them from time to time.  So, the "colonial solution" seemed a good deal for all parties.  The English could essentially export the agitators to another continent, where they were isolated from the motherland, and could cause no more problems.  The Pilgrims could also worship in peace.
 * The model worked so well in Plymouth that it was done over and over. Massachuestts Bay Colony was founded by Puritan reformers (a different group from the Seperatists that formed the core of the Pilgrim movement).  The Colony of Rhode Island was founded by dissenters who had been kicked out of Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth.  The Colony of Pennsylvania was founded as a home for Quakers and the Colony of Maryland was founded as a Roman Catholic haven.  Of course, there were other reasons for founding colonies.  The Colony of Virginia had been founded as a corporate commercial venture, The Province of New Hampshire was a private land grant to Captain John Mason and the Province of Georgia had been founded as a sort of giant debtors prison colony.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The pilgrims and puritans and other religious groups did not come to America because they believed in freedom of religion for any but themselves. They persecuted dissenters from their views if anyone dared to openly worship other than in the official approved manner of the colony. The persecuted all too quickly become the persecutors. Edison (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

voting machines
After reading the article on Diebold and Premier Election Solutions, I have to know, are these machines still going to be used for elections? Is anything being done to fix this? If there is, why isn't it mentioned in the article? thank you ---Jeevies (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems that I've been mistaken in my wording. I"m not asking about the debate of using machines against paper ballots at all. I'm asking about the particular Diebold/Premier kind of voting machines, as I was shocked after reading all the controversy listed with them. So what I want to know is if anything has been done to address these particular brand of voting machines since the article does not list any. The other question I asked is that after all these points of controversy, is this company still at large? --Jeevies (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about answering the question instead of debating the merits of paper vs electronic vs phone vs mail balloting? Jeevies, I dont have time right know to track down all the infos you need but off the top of my head- yes they are still in business. I remember reading an article (NY Times iirc) discussing a software patch that was to have remedied much of the problem. Hopefully someone will come along that can get you some links. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, Mr IP Editor 161.222.160.8, people editing from your anonymous address have had five vandalism warnings. How credible does that make you as to the best way to answer Ref Desk questions? Edison (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, Mr Registered editor Edison, been to the beach lately? It was just this guy was asking a question, coming back to restate his question, and all he was getting was personal opinion on the accuracy of varius voting methods. Was just pointing that out. And yeah, AGF sucka 161.222.160.8 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to be mostpeople are answering/concentrating on Malcolm XIVs supplemental question so I've moved that into itsown subsection Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith. Having said that, if you're willing to read a lot of Government Speak, this page goes into the California Secretary of State's approvals/disapprovals of elections systems.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Paper balloting vs electronic
I moved this into its own section because of concerns by the OP that supplemental question was detraction from his/her question Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an additional question, what exactly is the problem with putting an X on a piece of paper? Why are these machines needed at all? Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if they worked correctly a machine would be more 'secure' than a piece of paper. A machine would allow for faster return of results(and remove risk of miscounts). A machine would (potentially) require less labour than paper-ballot and a machine could even maybe be sold as a 'green' idea if they are used many-many times. A machine can also be kept accurate more quickly. A machine could also introduce more individual-verification (you could be mailed a unique code to identify you that then must be input to vote). If properly implemented such an item could offer many advantages to paper-ballots. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a discussion on these contraptions around the time of the US presidential election, see here. --Richardrj talkemail 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right in presuming you're not an American? If so an important point to realise which I think many non Americans don't (at least I didn't use to) is how many things Americans actually vote on in their elections. It's not just for the President, Senator, Congressperson, state Senator etc but potentially stuff like school board members, judges, coroners, sheriffs, potentially multiple amendments to the state constitution and other referenda, and other stuff I forget. Take a look for a ballot and you may start to get an idea. Also Americans are still used to having definite results on the night Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like in Florida? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.196.62 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Another factor is the tabulation of the votes, both in terms of accuracy and in terms of logistics. I did vote a paper ballot once (the mark-with-an-X kind, not the optical-scan kind), but that was in a county of 5,000 people.  There are about that many people who live in my Maryland voting precinct (granted, not all of them voters), and 300 such precincts in my county.  In the 2008 general election, there were 427,500 votes cast in the county.  Just in my precinct, you had these choices: president (6 candidates), state attorney general (3), state auditor (3), state treasurer (3), state judgeships (4), U.S. congressional representative (4), state senator (2), state representative (8), county board of education (2), proposed amendments to the county charter (2), county referendum (1), and two proposed amendments to the Maryland constitution.  Nine months earlier, we had the primary. That's a lot of paper.  --- OtherDave (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The Florida case is actually an excellent example. Beyond all the other controvery, I think it was clear that the idea that they didn't know for sure who their next President was one day later let alone one month later was deeply unsettling for many Americans. And one of the reasons for the controversy was the many deadlines. As far as I'm aware, in many countries deadlines of that sort are non existant, the most important thing is getting an accurate result and if problems arise they need to be sorted in some way that is fair, no matter how long it take. Timeliness is important but it always takes second fiddle to accuracy. Of course Americans do have some definite deadlines, e.g. when the President is supposed to be sworn in whereas in Westminister style parliamentary democracies, there is no definite deadline and it is accepted that the caretaker government lasts until someone is able to form a new government (which can sometimes take months). Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The key thing is to have a voter-verified paper trail. I have no problem with an electronic voting machine which marks a paper ballot on a roll of paper inside the machine which I can read before I press the key agreeing to "cast" the ballot. The objectionable type of machine just keeps an electronic total with no voter-verified paper trail, and it has been demonstrated to be quite possible to alter the totals. If a voter marks a paper ballot, what do we do with the ones where the voter marks it illegibly or ambiguously? In past elections, it was also possible for a crooked election judge to spoil a ballot marked for the "wrong" candidate by adding another mark by a different name with a piece of pencil lead concealed by a bandage around his finger. In some elections, there are literally dozens and dozens of referenda, water and sewer board members running unopposed, and judicial retention ballots running to many pages, and it would be a nightmare to accurately and repeatably tabulate them. In Florida in 2000, we saw that voters were not even competent to push a button hard enough to punch a punch card. I recommend secret ballots, with no internet or phone or mail voting without a good reason, and machine marked voter-verified ballots. Whenever the ballot is marked or the vote is cast from home, there is a liklihood of abuse by having a political hack "help" the voter while he casts the ballot from home. Absentee ballots should be limited to those unavoidably away on election day, since we have no way of knowing who is watching over the voter's shoulder.  I recommend that the initial and official count be from the machine marked roll of paper which the voter saw and approved, rather than saving that actual ballot for possible recounts, to avoid hanky-panky in the computer on election night. Edison (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Normandy
Who might have succeeded William II as Duke of Normandy, had he been killed at hastings? My understanding of the situation is that he had a considerable struggle to gain the Dukedom for himself, and would then have left a young son as his apparent successor. Was there anyone else that would likely have attempted to seize power at the time? 88.108.2.248 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Historian Harriet Harvey-Wood argues that the death of Harold Godwinson on the field at Hastings was the decisive factor in the Anglo-Saxon defeat. Consequently, if William of Normandy had died at the point in the battle where he was (first?) unhorsed and mistakenly thought dead, the Normans would have lost. If Harold had lived, he would have remained king; if Harold had also died, the most likely candidate for king would have been Edgar Atheling, who although young was the witan's chosen successor to Harold.
 * Robert Curthose was aged either 15 or 12 in 1066, and was William's legitimate son, so he might well have held the loyalty of William's Norman subjects. However, Curthose's track record as a leader and warrior is not good; he might easily have relinquished control of the duchy of Normandy to any of his neighbours (Brittany, Vexin, Flanders, France), or to either of his brothers (William Rufus, Henry I). AlexTiefling (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that Robert Curthose almost certainly would have inherited Normandy, but assuming that William's half-brothers Robert, Count of Mortain and Odo of Bayeux survived Hastings, one (or both) of them probably would have taken control if Curthose was underaged (or, even if he was already of age, since they seem like the kind of people who would have done that). There was a problem with the succession of William himself, since he was illegitimate and only seven years old when his father died, so I would expect plenty of assassinations and meddling from neighbours, as Alex said. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about Odo and Robert - that's a good suggestion. I can envisage a scenario in which Odo takes control and persuades Gregory VII (thought to have been the main source of church support for the invasion) to make Normandy a prince-bishopric. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This History of Normandy (start on page 266) elaborates on the many insurrections and revolts William dealt with in Normandy throughout the 1040s, 50s and 60s, which may yield more suspects. Besides Odo and Robert as mentioned above, there are also William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford and Hugh de Grandmesnil, both of whom that book says (page 409) were granted administrative powers by William while he was in England. Anther relative to consider might be Guy I, Count of Ponthieu, son of William's sister Adelaide of Normandy. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(out) Wow, this question is quite academic, but I'll try to answer it as best I can. :-) There were plenty of people who wanted power at that time, but it's all guesses as to who would have jumped at it. If William had been killed at Hastings and his army lost, but Harold Godwinson had been killed also, you would have had a very weak England [missing a king and a good chunk of their army]. Presumably the young Edgar the Ætheling would have been proclaimed king, but I wouldn't doubt that anyone wanting freedom from England would pass up the opportunity to split without fear of a major invasion (who would they have invaded with?). If William had been killed but his army won, a very interesting Ten Thousand (Greek)-type situation would have arose. What the army would have done is questionable. Would they have picked a commander and, if they had enough people remaining, have gone on a vengeful rampage throughout England, sacking cities as they went? Would they have just gone into a total retreat back to their fortress at Hastings and gone home? Would they have deserted the army and settled in the area to be assimilated into English culture? Does anyone have a reasonable guess? In Normandy, I don't think that Normandy as a separate vassal state would have lasted long. With a good portion of the army in England or laying dead at Hastings, any duke, or maybe even King Philip I of France himself (his father did attempt to invade Normandy in 1054 and 1057), could have invaded the weakened state. William's young son may have indeed been his successor, but I doubt that the little guy would have reigned long. I hope this helped, but keep in mind that this was all conjecture and subject to interpretation... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  15:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about the separatism issue; Edgar Atheling was young, but he was also popular. The main separatist leader had been Tostig Godwinson, who had died two weeks previously at Stamford Bridge, and there's not much evidence to suggest that any significant group governed by the English crown wanted rid of it at that point. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe not many were there before, but a sudden weakening of England might tip even slightly unhappy barons over the edge. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If both William and Harold had died, would the Norse have attempted another invasion? I'm not sure what they were up to after Stamford Bridge. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Stamford Bridge was a massacre; it devastated the Norwegian army and left both Harald Hardrada and Tostig, the main architects of the invasion, dead. It's often regarded with hindsight as the end of the viking age. Norway never again attacked England, and Scotland gradually absorbed Norway's British colonies. I think that by Hastings, the Norwegians are out of the running. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If both William and Harold were dead and with England massively weakened, would Scotland have attempted an invasion - at least trying to take the north? Warofdreams talk 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Malcolm III does seem to have tried to exert control over parts of northern England during the reign of Edward the Confessor, and to have stayed out of the wars of 1066. It's possible he might have seen this as a crucial opportunity. However, see my further response about Northumbria below. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With the death of Tostig, was there any support for his 14-year-old son Skuli? Skuli's mother was related to the Count of Flanders, and to William by marriage.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any local support for Tostig and his family. Tostig had been outlawed by the Northumbrians, and replaced as earl by their own choice, Morcar. If the Saxon kingdom had not fallen, the overwhelmingly likely outcome in my opinion is that Morcar would have been endorsed as earl, and been able to resist any incursions either by the Scots, or by the Norwegians in the name of either Tostig's or Hardrada's families. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

UK or European equivalent to paleoconservatism?
Is there a political movement in the traditionally more liberal European/UK regions that is roughly equivalent to the American paleoconservatism? If so, I'd be interested in reading more about it.--Over2u (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the UK, terms like Old Tory carry some similar connotations. I'm not sure about the rest of Europe - what would you say were the distinctive characteristics of palaeoconservatism? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article explains it.--Over2u (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I don't know of any close equivalents there are certainly movements that share many values with Paleoconservatives. Most of them are classified as Far Right, sharing a belief in 'traditional values', restriction on immigration, anti-federalism (anti EU), cultural superiority, anti-authoritarianism. Not all are overtly racist. Most don't have a religious focus. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems I don't always know what I'm talking about. This article might be interesting. The British National Party seems to share a lot of paleocon values. . DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any UK equivalent because much of paleoconservatism seems to be unique to the United States, such as what the American republic truly stands for regarding imperialism and federalism. For example, the British Conservative Party have always been the imperialist party. However they do share a belief in social conservatism. No political movement in the UK seems to be paleoconservative.--Johnbull (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd put a case for the UK Independence Party sharing a lot of paleoconservative values - although some members do take more libertarian views on some issues. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As above I'd strongly suggest that the British National Party is equivalent to paleoconservative. They are anti-immigration, anti-federalist (European federalism in this case), pro white culture and according to the above article self-styled "defenders of Christianity". The fact that the BNP is seen as "extreme right" is more of a comment on the difference between US and UK politics than between the two movements. UK Independence is probably a good match too - libertarianism is also a paleoconservative value. But the UKIP is not as strongly pro-capitalist, pro-white-culture as paleoconservatives. I'm not even sure if the UKIP is in favour of immigration restrictions or if it's as pro-military as paleocons. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * UKIP definitely stand for those things - see their policies in brief: "We will freeze immigration for five years, speed up deportation of up to a million illegal immigrants by tripling the numbers engaged in deportations, and have ‘no home no visa’ work permits to ease the housing crisis" and "We will support our armed forces with more spending on equipment, military homes and medical care. We will save our threatened warships and add 25,000 more troops". Warofdreams talk 23:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the BNP - the examples given in the paleoconservativism article are of views which would be held by some in Conservative Party, and by some in UKIP; they'd be considered hard right in the UK, but not generally as beyond the pale. In contrast, the BNP comes from a neo-Nazi background. That, of course, is played down by the BNP, and their actual policy statements may be closer to the paleocons, but our article gives many examples of incidents and statements by prominent members which I (and I suspect many others) would see as the continuing influence of that background. Warofdreams talk 23:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that religion is a very strong element in Palaeoconservatism, as indeed it is in American politics as a whole when compared to Britain. And it really isn't a major factor in the policies of either UKIP or the BNP. The latter's stance as self-styled "defenders of Christian values" seems to be far more about being anti-Islamic and anti the cultural relativism of PC than it is about being a bunch of bible-bashers. It's an example of dog-whistle politics. Malcolm XIV (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point that I was planning to make myself. Of course I presume in Britain similar to here in NZ, there are parties with a strong 'Christian' foundation and focus, but they tend to lack many of the other features of paleoconservatisim. Also most countries lack any anti-federalism for obvious reasons. Okay it may exist in the UK to some extent but it's clear of a rather different nature (if anything often opposition to fedaralism means they support a strong central government with limited or no independent assemblies for England, Wales, Scotland and [North] Ireland). And ironically the BNP itself of-quoted as an example above appears to support a federation with Ireland. Of course, there is some similarity in opposition to the European Union by some parties. And some parties do strongly support local government/governance but this is common in the left as well as the right. Also as has already been hinted at, many of the conservative movements in the UK (and probably other monarchies) are strongly supportive of the monarchy, something which I think would clearly be antithetic to paleoconservatives Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a number of parties in Eastern Europe such as the Polish People's Party which fit into the socially conservative, agrarian, anti-communist mold of paleoconservatism. Christian democracy in Europe (e.g. the old DC in Italy) has some factors in common but tends to be more moderate: while being anti-communist, right wing, pro-business, and somewhat socially conservative, they tend to have some support for a modest welfare state and other social provisions (similar to One Nation Conservatism in the UK).  Paleoconservatives in Europe would tend to be split between mainstream right-wing (Christian Democratic) parties and the nationalist, protectionist, populist, agrarian, extreme right wing groups like the British National Party, French Front National, and the now-defunct Alleanza Nazionale. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

presidential power and executive orders
If the president of the US wished, could he issue an executive order confiscating American goods that were legally purchased? As an example could the president order the confiscation of all the Dr Pepper in the US, even though that at the time of purchase, it was perfectly legal to buy the Dr Pepper? Would compensation be required, and if so, who would determine how much? 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In your example, I'm almost sure that that would require an Act of Congress. As far as I know, executive orders only affect people under the president (the executive branch). — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody really knows the limits of US presidential power. They are defined by the interpretation of the Constitution that the three branches of government choose to make at a particular time.  If the president felt that Dr. Pepper was a threat to the nation, and Congress and the courts declined to challenge him/her, then he would certainly have a free hand to root out the syrupy threat with no compensation required.  --Sean 19:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that he can't take your Dr. Pepper without compensation. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that the government can't take your property without "due process of law".  Upon this massive seizure, I believe any court would agree with a Dr. Pepper-drinking plaintiff that the seizure was illegal under the 14th; that it didn't serve any legitimate state interest and hence did not give due process to us all; the court would issue an injunction ordering the government to return all of the Dr. Pepper.  An exception I can think of:  If the FDA ruled that Dr. Pepper was an imminent threat to all human health, then the President might be able to order a mass seizure of all the Dr. Pepper in the US, and upon all the caffeinated consumers filing their class action lawsuits, the courts might decide that this not only was justified under the 14th amendment as complying with due process, but also didn't comprise a "taking" under the 5th amendment, so no compensation would be due to you.  Here's hoping the FDA stays off our backs.  Tempshill (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You think that the Constitution would stop a president of the U.S. from seizing soft drinks if he believed it was necessary to protect the nation? Franklin Roosevelt's 1942 Executive Order 9066 declared that people of Japanese ancestry could be hauled away at gunpoint by the military and put in concentration camps, even if they only had 1/16 Japanese ancestry. Unlike the internment of enemy aliens from Germany or Italy, this Executive Order applied to U.S. citizens "with one drop of Japanese blood." The U.S. Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States refused to interfere with this executive order. Perhaps the U.S. government would apologize to the former owners of the confiscated Dr. Pepper 40 years later, and pay reparations, as they did to the interned Japanese-Americans.As for the necessity of a prior acto of congress to empower a president, recent presidents have used acts or resolutions passed in time of crisis as a blanket authorization to take actions not ever explicitly discussed in the legislative history of the empowering "use of force" measure.  Edison (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and other civil liberties during the War. --Gadget850 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) No, I don't dispute that a US president could and would seize all national Dr. Pepper assets if it were suspected of brainwashing America's youth into sympathy for Communism. As with my FDA example, this would be an exception.  Under normal circumstances, any court would reverse the seizure as a violation of the 14th.  Tempshill (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was reading an annotation dealing with presidential powers under Article I this past weekend. Many scholars believe the president has broad scope under the necessary and proper clause. The widest power exists in foreign affairs and the military. Ex parte Milligan said Lincoln could not suspend habeus corpus while civil courts were open. The Supreme Court has refused to hear these cases often, invoking the political question doctrine. Overall, I was impressed by how the actual powers of the president were undefined in many respects. It is only with the advent of the regulated state that courts have begun to hear these cases. The Federalist Paper authors, Hamilton and Madison, took different theories as real political disputes were presented. I have no doubt that in the field of foreign affairs and military Dr. Pepper could be confiscated. Korematsu v. United States is the gold standard, in my opinion. So much depends on the political climate within the United States when the power is asserted. On September 11, 2002, when we were attacked, the president had much broader powers than today. The annotation said powers, not express, may be available to the president to fulfill the office of the executive. Absent a clear-cut case with detailed facts, one never knows what is constitutional. 75Janice (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 75Janice


 * Abraham Lincoln's disregarding of the Supreme Court during the first three years or so of his term has to do with the very special circumstances that the U.S. was facing its greatest-ever internal crisis at the time, together with the fact that Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was widely reviled in northern politics after the Dred Scott decision of 1857, and regarded as little better than a traitor by many in the north during the last three to four years of his life. There was very little political cost to Lincoln in defying the discredited Taney court, since almost all Taney supporters would be irreconcilable political opponents to Lincoln, regardless of whether Lincoln paid any attention to the Supreme Court or not... AnonMoos (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Where exactly did you read a scholar thinks the president has powers under the necessary and proper clause? That clause applies distinctly to Congress, article I, section 8. It does not give congress any affirmative powers (other than to enact the enumerated powers), and it particularly does not give the president any right to pass laws. The vast majority of executive power, even after Bush's assertions of expanding power, are directly pursuant to congressional laws that granted those powers. And as other posts point out, even the president is bound by the constitution Shadowjams (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments are indented as if they were in reply to my previous comment, yet they have no relevance to anything I said. AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See Cornell Law School's annotated U.S. Constitution, Article II. I erred in using the term "necessary and proper," instead I should have used synonyms for necessary and proper. Clearly, the president has power to perform executive functions. My comment addressed the issue that the few cases that do exist often use different theories to arrive at a result. Few cases have been heard because of the political question doctrine. Many cases date from the 1800's before the rise of a powerful military and the regulation state. No one is asserting that the president can perform extraconstitutional functions. How is constitutionality determined? These cases are fascinating precisely because they address areas that were not addressed formally by the Constitution or the founders left actual practice to determine some aspects. Many would say Bush's actions were extraconstitutional. 75Janice (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)75Janice


 * In theory the Supreme Court could undo over-reaching Presidential orders. In past practice, the Supreme Court has been very careful not to issue any rulings which a President might reject and refuse to enforce with the Justice Department and the armed forces, all controlled by the Executive Branch, headed by the President. Thus they would never have ruled that the Vietnam War was unconstitutional due to the lack of the required declaration of war by Congress. Humorist Finley Peter Dunne(1867-1936) had his fictional character Mr. Dooley say "...the Supreme Court follows the election returns." Taney was an exception to this, in attempting to enforce the clear language of the Constitution against the dictatorial decrees of Lincoln. Taney expected that Lincoln would have him locked up, but followed the dictates of the Constitution with regard to opposing Lincoln having his opponents locked up without due process. Edison (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It can be argued that something like what the questioner has proposed has happened. In 1933 FDR banned the ownership of gold during the Great Depression. This ban wasn't repealed until the 70's. Today there are some people who fear the order will return. For details see Executive Order 6102. - Thanks, Hoshie 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is incredible! How did he justify that hoarding gold was enforceable under the trading with the enemy act of 1917?  There was no enemy or trade  65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Portugese traders in the 16th and 17th centuries Japan
How many Portuguese traders went to Japan in the 16th and 17th centuries? Please provide me with reference website links. Sonic99 (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I googled "Japan Portugal trade" and got some useful looking links. This book looks as though it might be helpful.   Ka renjc 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Public bathroom etiquette
I'm often surprised by what goes on in public washrooms and left wondering if there have ever been studies into the psychology of using public restrooms. Is it a common theme to not flush the toilet after using it(this one boggles my mind)? Is it rude to use the urnial next to someone else, even in crowded circumstance? or generally preferred to use a stall rather than a urinal when number one is called for? 142.132.4.45 (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I know there is a lot of discussion of the unspoken (well, now more spoken) rules for men's toilet use, including rules like "no talking", "never pee next to someone unless you have to", "eyes front" and guidelines as to covering one's parts from view. I don't know of any studies to see what is actually done. I don't think I'd like to be that person, but I'd be interested in the results. Other things that might be relevant are mobile phones (answering a call is generally a no-no, but what about messaging?), flushing urinals ("If it's yellow, should it mellow?"), hand washing (and techniques), managing spills, etc. It's a lot more complex than it seems at first, and there's a lot of room for fauxs pas. Steewi (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's the courtesy flush too, which many folks never learn. 71.72.148.80 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Light a match. Kittybrewster &#9742;  19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't actually work. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing that complicates it, is the general rule (similar to 'eyes front' and 'no talking') of ignoring other people in the room (or at least trying one's best to). This is possibly why some people never learn, because they are not observing what other people are doing. For example, if the guy next to you did, in fact, spill, you wouldn't notice it until he either tries to clean it up or goes out of the room. If you do see him cleaning it up, you are not going to watch how he does it, rather saving yourself (and him) any embarrassment by finishing up as quickly as possible. However, if he does walk out and just leaves his mess, you'll hate him forever, but you won't go after him to remind him.--KageTora (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Googling for urinal etiquette brings up a host of interesting results. one might say a "shitload" of results  Dismas |(talk) 04:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How the other half lives, indeed! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your first question, it's definitely been studied - from all kinds of angles - though the most common seems to be re handwashing behaviour, rather than the particular things you asked about. See. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the replies have assumed (based on your mention of urinals) that you are mostly interested in the rules for male facilities. Is this okay, or would you like other contexts as well? 217.43.141.59 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My main concern has been for the male side of things as that's my experience, but the female side would be an interesting study. I assume they go in pairs so that they can talk privately with each other, besides that I wouldn't know of any odd happenings that go on behind those closed doors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.4.33 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)